game 5. and so do i. looking back on it, and since we thankfully won the series, pretty damn cool/unique game to have attended though. probably a top 10 moment in playoff history.
Said this a week ago.......as a Nationals Fan...(not bandwagon)......never felt more deflated. This is such a tragic feeling......
This was my thought as well. I can't wait for this topic to make the rounds on all the ESPN talking head shows again.
Watching the Cardinals win a playoff series just makes me NOT want to watch the playoffs even more. Same for the Yankees.
Read an article where a bunch of anonymous GM's were saying they didn't care who won as long as it wasn't Nats. Rizzo's comments that they were saving SS for playoff series in the future pissed people off.
I think it would be silly to fire Mike Rizzo. Sure, the decision to shut Strasburg down was an ill-advised one, but I don't think he was acting unilaterally when making that decision. He has done a fantastic job of stockpiling talent. Anything can happen, of course, but he has that franchise set up to be pretty good for a long time.
What Rizzo should have done was wait to pitch Strasburg until the end of May and that way he would have not reached his innings limit until after the playoffs. But LOL @ him and that decision; would love to see him get fired over it but it won't happen. And LOL @ whoever said that the Nats won't be in the playoffs anymore; uh, they'll be a fixture for the next 5 to 10 years.
That's exactly what he meant. And it's delusional. He spoke as if he was guaranteed playoffs again. That's what upset other GMs. His comments came across as arrogant and as if they knew better than anyone else. My thought is...if you know you're going to limit him, why not keep him on the shelf until June instead of having him start in April?
There are absolutely no guarantees that Washington will be in the playoffs, much less a fixture for nearly a decade. All kinds of variables.
Read the same thing and thought it was completely gutless for someone to make such a statement without attaching your name to it. Can't stand that kind of thing, you feel that strongly you should be a man and put your name next to the quote. Anyway, regardless of how you feel about the Strasburg thing, the bottom line is that the Nationals' FO made their decision based on the advice of Strasburg's surgeons. You could argue that they could have handled it differently with how they monitored his innings, how they communicated their decision to the press, etc. etc., but I understand their reasoning. Ask Cubs fans if allowing Baker to ride Mark Prior without any limitations in 2003 was worth the trip to the NLCS.
I heard an interview with someone (I forget who) that mentioned that the Nationals were almost as concerned with Strasburg's schedule as they were his inning total. They wanted him to start throwing right at the start of the season and then pitch every five days without fail. They didn't want to hold him back until later in the season or skip starts.
I don't think there was anything wrong with the initial decision. The Nationals weren't really expected to be contenders this year, and if nothing else, you want to get off to a good start so you play Strasburg. The mistake, in my opinion, was in June when they realized they really were good - at that point, it's pretty easy to skip starts here and there or go to a 6 man rotation (they had 6 decent SPs) or whatever. At the very least, don't have him pitch in the All Star Game. As for being a fixture in the playoffs, that's just silly. The Phillies a few years ago, with Howard, Utley, Rollins, & Victorino on offense and a rotation of Halladay, Hamels, Lee, and Oswalt were supposed to be unstoppable for the foreseeable future. Too much changes in baseball to say anyone is a fixture, and that's especially true of this Nationals team. A bunch of no-name players had career years that will be hard to match - much of their rotation, LaRoche, Desmond, etc. They could easily be a 75 win team next year.
